The Spectator, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 eBook

which he finds: Nature fails him, and being
forced to his old Shift, he has Recourse to Witticism.
This passes indeed with his soft Admirers, and gives
him the Preference to Virgil in their Esteem.’

Were not I supported by so great an Authority as that
of Mr. Dryden, I should not venture to observe,
That the Taste of most of our English Poets,
as well as Readers, is extremely Gothick.
He quotes Monsieur Segrais [7] for a threefold
Distinction of the Readers of Poetry: In the
first of which he comprehends the Rabble of Readers,
whom he does not treat as such with regard to their
Quality, but to their Numbers and Coarseness of their
Taste. His Words are as follow:

’Segrais has distinguished
the Readers of Poetry, according to their Capacity
of judging, into three Classes. [He might have said
the same of Writers too, if he had pleased.] In
the lowest Form he places those whom he calls Les
Petits Esprits, such thingsas are our Upper-Gallery
Audience in a Play-house; who like nothing but the
Husk and Rind of Wit, prefer a Quibble, a Conceit,
an Epigram, before solid Sense and elegant Expression:
These are Mob Readers. If Virgil and Martial
stood for Parliament-Men, we know already who would
carry it. But though they make the greatest
Appearance in the Field, and cry the loudest, the
best on’t is they are but a sort of French
Huguenots, or Dutch Boors, brought over in
Herds, but not Naturalized; who have not Lands of
two Pounds per Annum in Parnassus,
and therefore are not privileged to poll. Their
Authors are of the same Level, fit to represent
them on a Mountebank’s Stage, or to be Masters
of the Ceremonies in a Bear-garden: Yet these
are they who have the most Admirers. But it
often happens, to their Mortification, that as their
Readers improve their Stock of Sense, (as they may
by reading better Books, and by Conversation with Men
of Judgment) they soon forsake them.’

I [must not dismiss this Subject without [8]] observing
that as Mr. Lock in the Passage above-mentioned
has discovered the most fruitful Source of Wit, so
there is another of a quite contrary Nature to it,
which does likewise branch it self out into several
kinds. For not only the Resemblance, but
the Opposition of Ideas, does very often produce
Wit; as I could shew in several little Points, Turns
and Antitheses, that I may possibly enlarge upon in
some future Speculation.

C.

’If Wit has truly been defined as
a Propriety of Thoughts and Words, then that definition
will extend to all sorts of Poetry... Propriety
of Thought is that Fancy which arises naturally from
the Subject, or which the Poet adapts to it.
Propriety of Words is the cloathing of these Thoughts
with such Expressions as are naturally proper to them.’